Qt 3.2 requirement

[Marc Mutz]

On Monday 28 July 2003 18:11, Ralf Nolden wrote:
<snip>
> The issue I see here is only that you have those three scenarios:
>
> - people running HEAD -> no problem for them to switch to Qt 3.2

Define "people running HEAD". I for one try to work as long as possible 
with the latest stable branch of KDE except for certain small parts 
(kio_smtp, KMail, other PIM + dependencies) which are from HEAD, so I 
can work on them. I'm not at all interested in Hindi (other than from a 
nice to have POV) support b/c I can't read Hindi anyway. Instead, I 
want to stay as long as possible (ideally until the feature freeze is 
in effect for the next version, 3.2 in this case) on a stable KDE 
environment. I expect other mostly-apps-developers to share this 
desire.

> - people running KDE 3.1.x -> how does Qt 3.2 affect that ? I still
> didn't get a complete answer on exactly *WHAT* does not work
> correctly when upgrading to Qt 3.2 on a KDE 3.1 machine. That is what
> should be fixed and therefore #ifdef's in KDE_3_1_BRANCH for
> backports of fixes that go into HEAD to work with Qt 3.2. That makes
> users happy while we can use 3.2 with HEAD automatically. Also people
> can install Qt 3.2, KDE 3.1 and HEAD, all on the same machine.

I am completely with you here. However, kde 3.1 issues with Qt 3.2 
cannot be fixed by #ifdef'ing. It must be possible to compile a kde 
3.1.x against Qt 3.1.0 and let it run on all 3.1.x and 3.2.x that are 
out there when kde 3.1.x is released. A kde 3.1.4 should _not_ require 
Qt 3.2, but require 3.1.0 and suggest 3.2.x and 3.1.y for maximal x,y.

> - people running KDE 3.1 and HEAD -> see above

Definition, please ;-)
HEAD libs with 3.1 kdebase?
3.1 base and libs with HEAD kdepim?
HEAD koffice with qt-copy and KDE 3.1 desktop?

> So from my perspective it is *better* to switch to Qt 3.2 in HEAD and
> fix any known issues with Qt 3.2 in KDE_3_1_BRANCH ASAP.

Of course, it's better to switch. but we've already done that when Qt3.2 
betas were committed to qt-copy :-o. What should _not_ be done is to 
_require_ 3.2. In RFC speak: you MUST use 3.1.x and SHOULD use 3.2.

Marc

-- 
There are lots of hackers in the world -- kids, mostly -- who like to
play at politics and dress their own antics in the trappings of
terrorism. [...] It's base and despicable, and it causes real damage,
but it's cyberhooliganism, not cyberterrorism.
                             -- Bruce Schneier, Crypto-Gram Jun 2003
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20030729/8310397f/attachment.sig>